The atacms strikes will help in kursk, but less so in the east imo. Maybe this will mess up those logistics as well, but it seems too little too late.
Just politically, It isn't parity to ten thousand soldiers and 60% of their shells being North Korean. North Korea is at war in Europe, and this is not a commensurate response.
Lifting the restrictions now after Russia's logistics have already retreated also took the bite out of their potential. It should have been a surprise, overnight, when the Russian airforce was still relatively concentrated and unconcerned.
Better than nothing; I hope it changes something, for a time at least.
Abandoning Ukraine risks emboldening Russia to continue their conquest of Eastern Europe - which, ultimately, increases the risk of nuclear war anyway, only with a stronger Russia with even more leverage. Being nuclear armed should not give a country license to seize any territory they wish.
You think letting Russia harass and invade their former vazal states is without risk? They've occupied eastern Europe until 1989. With the invasion of Crimea in 2014 they've basically only not harassed and not occupied eastern European countries for only 25 years. The only thing which provokes Russia is weakness.
Typically this would require something to be gained from engaging in nuclear war. If you bring out the nukes then you are pretty much asking to be utterly destroyed. Sure you may get some of your enemies in the meantime, but you won't survive to see them dead. Using nukes in Ukraine is just a quick way to turn every other country in the world against you.
I think it is far more likely that Russia is waiting for a change of leadership in America that is friendly to their cause. In the meantime they are digging fortifications and stocking up for a future offensive to retake Kursk and expand their holdings in Ukraine when they lose access to American munitions.
I think it reduces the risk of a nuclear war. The thing to understand about Russia is that all their "red lines" are empty talk, and what they really respect is force. Ukraine appeared weak to Putin, and that's why he invaded. Only way to peacefully coexist with Russia is by either becoming their puppet, or having enough strength to make an invasion seem obviously bad idea.
IMO the best way to prevent a nuclear war with Russia would be supplying all its neighbours with big pile of nuclear weapons. Then they would have nowhere to invade without risking their own destruction.
>Only way to peacefully coexist with Russia is by either becoming their puppet
Finland has been peacefully coexisting with USSR and Russia for almost 80 years after the WW2.
>would be supplying all its neighbours with big pile of nuclear weapons
Russia could do that too. Starting with Cuba, for example. Think of every country the US ever invaded or bombed having nukes and the means to deliver them to the US.
I think that Russia (Putin) thought that ukraine would collapse within days and it would be a walkover.
But it wasn’t and Zelensky bound his people together to resist the Russian army. The Russian army showed its capabilities and more surprisingly it’s huge limitations.
The oligarchy in Russia may well determine that getting rid of Putin might be less risky than letting him escalate the situation, especially if he starts talking about using even battlefield nukes.
The US's national security interests in supporting Ukraine are pretty blindingly obvious. Turning isolationist and emboldening Russia helps no-one but Russia.
With fairness to these "emotional lunatics", their assumption that Russia would be too afraid to attack NATO territories has thus far been proven right.
That's exactly it. Up until now, it was widely believed that this would risk nuclear war, which is why it wasn't allowed.
But now the US is about to have a President who is far, far more favorable to Putin. Would Putin blow up the US just before it's going to cease support for Ukraine entirely?
This is a calculated risk. Everything about this war has been a calculated risk (and indeed, any war). There is a strong argument to be made that nuclear war was never really going to happen, and that we should have allowed Ukraine to attack Russia more directly all along. The present administration rejected that, but now that calculation has changed.
Better to be dead then to be a slave in russia- which almost always means you will become a slave dragged against your will to the trenches to die in another enslavement campaign. So the choice boils down russia or not russia - and beeing dead either way.
The same people who were very wrong about the election seem to believe everything the same media says about Russia. Very strong correlation, very questionable propaganda
I don’t know what media you consumed, but the media I read indicated the race could go either way, and that a 300+ EV tally for either candidate was possible. It’s literally impossible to have been “wrong”.
The media here in the UK told us that intel was saying Russia had gathered troops and equipment near the border of Ukraine, preparing for an invasion. Putin said they were lying.
Then Putin invaded Ukraine, but called it a special military operation.
Now our news tries to keep us updated about which territory is controlled by Russia or Ukraine, what the rough estimated casualties are, and so on.
Which part do you think they're misinforming us about?
they need to capture as much Russian soil as they can, and when the orange man and the other clown tell them to freeze the border, Ukraine can say sure, if you insist!
You really think people who are dragged to the trenches by press gangs [1] will "capture soil"? The video is by RFERL, BTW, as Western as it gets. Not "FSB propaganda".
Likely response is bombing whatever is left of Ukrainian power generation and potentially arming the Houthis.
The analysis I’ve seen indicates that these weapons will not fundamentally alter the course of the war.
Kursk was a gamble to improve Ukraine’s negotiating position, which has gotten consistently worse.
Maybe I'm wrong, but with the river north of the Ukrainian border, it seemed like they wanted that as new easier to maintain defensive line.
The defenses in the north were affected by incompetence or corruption, so the push north came across a little like shoring up their positions to need fewer men in the long run.
Readit News
Just politically, It isn't parity to ten thousand soldiers and 60% of their shells being North Korean. North Korea is at war in Europe, and this is not a commensurate response.
Lifting the restrictions now after Russia's logistics have already retreated also took the bite out of their potential. It should have been a surprise, overnight, when the Russian airforce was still relatively concentrated and unconcerned.
Better than nothing; I hope it changes something, for a time at least.
†: everybody == a lot of people, just to be clear
I think it is far more likely that Russia is waiting for a change of leadership in America that is friendly to their cause. In the meantime they are digging fortifications and stocking up for a future offensive to retake Kursk and expand their holdings in Ukraine when they lose access to American munitions.
IMO the best way to prevent a nuclear war with Russia would be supplying all its neighbours with big pile of nuclear weapons. Then they would have nowhere to invade without risking their own destruction.
Finland has been peacefully coexisting with USSR and Russia for almost 80 years after the WW2.
>would be supplying all its neighbours with big pile of nuclear weapons
Russia could do that too. Starting with Cuba, for example. Think of every country the US ever invaded or bombed having nukes and the means to deliver them to the US.
I think that Russia (Putin) thought that ukraine would collapse within days and it would be a walkover.
But it wasn’t and Zelensky bound his people together to resist the Russian army. The Russian army showed its capabilities and more surprisingly it’s huge limitations.
The oligarchy in Russia may well determine that getting rid of Putin might be less risky than letting him escalate the situation, especially if he starts talking about using even battlefield nukes.
Dead Comment
But now the US is about to have a President who is far, far more favorable to Putin. Would Putin blow up the US just before it's going to cease support for Ukraine entirely?
This is a calculated risk. Everything about this war has been a calculated risk (and indeed, any war). There is a strong argument to be made that nuclear war was never really going to happen, and that we should have allowed Ukraine to attack Russia more directly all along. The present administration rejected that, but now that calculation has changed.
Is it correct? Who the heck knows.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
Only russian bots and people with mental development problems.
Nuclear war is not something to be lightly risked
Then Putin invaded Ukraine, but called it a special military operation.
Now our news tries to keep us updated about which territory is controlled by Russia or Ukraine, what the rough estimated casualties are, and so on.
Which part do you think they're misinforming us about?
what can be done by that military in that amount of time?
But this gives them a better chance of holding what they have and destroying the Russian logistics and infrastructure.
Hopefully the European powers and the UK will lift any restrictions that they have imposed and provide additional supplies.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xnw2Abqmu64
The analysis I’ve seen indicates that these weapons will not fundamentally alter the course of the war. Kursk was a gamble to improve Ukraine’s negotiating position, which has gotten consistently worse.
The defenses in the north were affected by incompetence or corruption, so the push north came across a little like shoring up their positions to need fewer men in the long run.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment